Imperialism in China: An Exchange

Abstract

From the viewpoint of those in control of state power, few things can be more frustrating than the relative autonomy of the populace in whose name political power is exercised. However, when a large number, preferably the majority, of those who cherish this autonomy are in need, an unquestionable reason for intervention is provided. When this state of need can be linked, if only in formal terms, to the low productivity of labor, a specific field of intervention is clearly defined. Finally, when relative autonomy, low labor productivity, and need can be shown to coincide in specific groups or social classes, the State and its allies are provided with the social, economic, and political legitimacy to intervene. It is then that their solicitude knows no bounds. Getting people to work more efficiently, more productively, becomes the major goal of society. While this preoccupation has always been present whatever the form of State power, it stands as the raison d’être of all contemporary authoritarian regimes, whether of the left or the right.     

Klagebefugnis aus dem allgemeinen Willkürverbot bei einem Versto? gegen die Staatszielbestimmung Umweltschutz

Nach einer Entscheidung des Bayerischen Verfassungsgerichtshofs kann ein Bauleitplan wegen Versto? gegen das Willkürverbot aus Gründen des Umweltschutzes nichtig sein. Diese auf eine Popularklage ergangene Entscheidung er?ffnet die Frage, ob der Verfassungsgrundsatz des Willkürverbots auch im Rahmen von Verwaltungsakten herangezogen werden kann. Der Beitrag bejaht diese M?glichkeit.     

… and still we are left wanting: Malta's White Paper on digital rights

CLSR welcomes occasional comment pieces on issues of current importance in the law and technology field from different jurisdictions. In this instance the Government of Malta published a White Paper in October 2012 for public consultation, proposing the introduction of the following four so-called “digital rights” in the Constitution of Malta: (1) the right to Internet access; (2) the right to informational access; (3) the right to informational freedom and (4) the right to digital informational self-determination. The author believes that the proposal is indeed a step in the right direction but lacks punch where it matters most and does not go far enough.